Should people who have recovered from COVID take a vaccine?



Really fine article sticking to that which we know & not that which we do not know. Treating fallacies for what they are & explaining each carefully is the exact right approach. To Marc who has been fighting against misinformation together since March 2020, I say “ Great job!” – Prof. Michael Levitt, 2013 Chemistry Nobel Laureate

by Marc Girardot

A British friend, recovered from COVID, decided to get vaccinated despite being naturally immune. This is the email he recently sent me:

“Marc I suffered a mild stroke on Wednesday 8 days after taking the Astrazeneca 2nd dose. Since I am a marathon runner I am a very ‘rare case’. I don’t smoke, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, family history or come into any of the risk categories for blood clots…You did warn me against taking the second dose and I wished I’d heeded your advice. I’ve taken a totally unnecessary risk with my life and I bitterly regret doing it.”

Contrary to most, Tony was informed; he had been told about the power of natural immunity, about the long – if not lifelong – duration of immunity, of the risk inherent to any medical procedure (yes, vaccination is a medical procedure!), as well as of the rising levels of adverse events. He admitted he hadn’t imagined it could happen to him…

Though it is hard to assess precisely the actual severity and breadth of vaccine-related adverse events, it is very clear that vaccination against COVID-19 isn’t as harmless as pharmaceuticals, mainstream media, academia, health authorities and the medical community have been saying. And, in contrast to high risk individuals who are still susceptible, recovered people have no real benefit to balance the additional risks of vaccination.

For over a year, mainstream media, health authorities as well as many “experts” have been downplaying the power of the immune system, dismissing natural immunity and proclaiming that immunity to COVID-19 was short-lived. Simultaneously, vaccines have been portrayed as the silver bullet to this crisis, an incidental procedure with no risk whatsoever. The data shows a different picture and many are coming forward, to challenge the official narrative. We will demonstrate that this is a fallacy.

The human immune system is one of the most sophisticated achievements of evolution. The survival of our species has depended on it for millennia. And today, we are still very much relying on it. For the record,  99% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without treatment. Only 1% of SARS-CoV-2 patients, who did not receive early home-based treatment, end up hospitalised. In other words, the immune system overwhelmingly protects. Even vaccines depend entirely on the immune system: vaccines essentially teach our immune systems what viral markers to be prepared for, they are not cures per se. Without a functional immune system, there can be no effective vaccine.

On the waning immunity fallacy

Once recovered, the immune response recedes, notably via a decrease in antibodies. It is not only natural; it is indispensable to restore the body to a normal balanced state. Just as a permanent state of fever would be harmful, a high number of targetless antibodies or T-cells constantly circulating throughout the body could create serious complications such as autoimmune diseases. Taking an evolutionary perspective, only those whose antibody and T-cells count waned post-infection survived. So, a dropping number of antibodies and T-cells is reassuring, even healthy.

But this decrease in T-cells and antibodies doesn’t mean at all that immunity is gone. It means the immune system has adapted to the new situation, and is now just on sentinel mode: Memory B- and T-cells, circulating in the blood and resident in tissues, act as vigilant and effective sentinels for decades:

Indeed, all recent studies show the specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity remains effective – possibly for a lifetime. Our immune system is a modular platform, it can combine in an infinite number of ways to address a multitude of threats in a variety of contexts. As such, it is neutral to the viral threats it faces. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those recovered from Covid-19 would lose their immunity over the years, or even the decades to come.

On the reinfection fallacy

You might have also heard of people becoming reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, isn’t the impenetrable shield described by many. Essentially harmless and asymptomatic reinfections do take place. That is, in fact, the very mechanism by which adaptive immunity is triggered.

However, symptomatic reinfections are very rare. Like an army which adapts its response to the size and the progression of its enemy forces, adaptive immunity provides a specific, rapid and resource-optimised response. As such, reinfections are mostly asymptomatic and recovered patients are protected from severe disease.

In fact, innocuous reinfections can play a positive public health role as continuous immune updates of the population. They can help a seamless and progressive adaptation to emerging new variants and strains. And indeed a recent study showed that couples with children were more frequently asymptomatic than couples without, most likely because children acted as natural and harmless immunisation vehicles. The likely reason high density countries all have very low death tolls is that they have asymptomatic reinfections that regularly and widely update the immunity of the population.

On the variant fallacy

As demonstrated by the low numbers of reinfections mentioned above, but also by multiple studies, so far variants have not escaped acquired immunity. Just like Americans can speak and interact seamlessly in England, unhindered by a few word variants, natural or vaccine-induced immunity is unhindered by variants, possibly more so than vaccine-induced immunity. There is ample evidence of the sophistication and breadth of the human immune system, and it is clear that its arsenal cannot be evaded by a few minor changes in the genes of the virus.

Across the world (countries: Canada, Ecuador, Gabon, Germany, India, Singapore, Sweden, UK, USA, Tanzania, Zambia), multiple studies demonstrate high-levels of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. In other words, many were already largely immune via other coronaviruses. This is the likely explanation for the unexpectedly high level of asymptomatics during the pandemic. More importantly, this demonstrates that even with large genetic differences, prior immunity to related coronaviruses is sufficient to avoid severe Covid. Therefore, it is quite evident that variants are not a concern for the general population who have already recovered.

On the vaccine better-than-the-natural-immunity fallacy

You might have heard people stating that vaccines provide better protection than natural immunity. That’s an interesting way of bending reality. How can a vaccine be more effective at immunisation than the disease it is trying to mimic?

Theoretically, there are several reasons that explain why natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity:

  • Fewer immune targets: mRNA/DNA vaccines present only a fraction of the virus genetic code (5-10%). For example, they don’t utilise ORF1 highly immunogenic epitopes. Therefore, the immune system will recruit a smaller number of T-cells tapping into a narrower repertoire,  consequently with a less effective response. The logic: Imagine you lose a number of key players for a football tournament – you might still win, but it will be harder.
  • Longer immune trigger time: The smaller number of epitope targets also means that the alarm to the immune system will be delayed. This is a key driver of success in the COVID-19 battle. The wider the target repertoire, the faster the encounter between dendritic cells and identifiable antigens. The logic: Like a party you go to, you can start partying much faster when you have ten friends there than when you have only one. They are just easier to find.
  • Inappropriate delivery location: The intramuscular delivery of current vaccines unfortunately doesn’t mimic viral penetration and propagation at all. Coronaviruses don’t enter the body via muscles. They do so via the respiratory tract, often infecting cell to cell.  Contrary to muscle-delivered vaccines, natural immunity places a strong sentinel force of memory resident cells at the portals of entry and shuts the body entrance to the virus preemptively. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense. The logic: It’s much easier to stop an army coming through a narrow gorge than on the beaches of Normandy.

Recent research confirms this logic. One comparative study in Israel found the protection from severe disease to be 96·4% for Covid-19 recovered individuals but 94.4% for vaccinated ones, and concluded “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” Another reference comparative study by a team at New York University highlighted a faster, wider and more impactful humoral and cytotoxic reaction in recovered immunity versus vaccine-induced.

There is ample evidence that vaccinating people recovered from COVID doesn’t bring any benefit. It quite possibly does the opposite, because of the risk of building tolerance to elements of the virus translating into reduced immune potency.

On the vaccine innocuity fallacy

Without denigrating the incredible contribution of vaccines to modern medicine and public health, one needs to acknowledge that vaccines are a medical procedure. As such, vaccines should never be considered lightly. They are neither neutral, nor trivial, all the more so when they are injected into billions of people.

By their very nature, vaccines tinker with the sophisticated balance of one’s immune system. That in itself demands respecting rigid safety protocols. Though we have made considerable progress in our understanding of immunology, we are still very far from understanding its intricacies and subtleties, especially when it comes to novel mRNA and DNA technologies.

Because of the risk of anaphylactic shock, auto-immune diseases, unforeseen interactions, design flaws, deficient quality protocols, over-dosage, and so on – vaccines have traditionally been strictly regulated.

History teaches us to be watchful with vaccines, from the botched inactivation of polio vaccines that ended up infecting 40,000 kids with polio in 1955, to the 1976 swine flu vaccine which caused 450 to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, to the more recent vaccine-induced outbreak of polio in Sudan. The recent rejection by Brazilian health authorities of the Barhat’s Covaxin is a clear reminder of how rigorous and independent our health authorities need to be if vaccines are to promote, not hinder, public health.

After 6 months of vaccination and a year of research, a number of red flags should be alerting the would-be vaccinated and health authorities:

  1. Wandering nanoparticles: The lipid nanoparticles, the carriers of the mRNA, were supposed to remain in the muscle, but ended up broadly distributed throughout the body, notably in the ovaries, the liver and possibly the bone marrow.
  2. Anaphylactic PEG: A number of concerns had been raised regarding the novel use of PEG adjuvant. Notably, prior research had raised the risk of cardiac anaphylaxis at second injection.
  3. Sensitive locations: ACE-2 receptors susceptible to binding to the spike protein are highly expressed in the endothelial cells of highly sensitive areas, such as the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver and both male and female reproductive systems.
  4. Toxic circulating spikes: The spike proteins induced by mRNA/DNA vaccines have been shown to be pathogenic, and highly inflammatory, notably because of the similarity of a spike sequence to that of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B. It has also been found to be directly causing blood clots through platelet activation. One researcher said, “Our findings show that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes lung injury even without the presence of an intact virus”.
  5. BBB disruption: A recent study highlights the risk of disruption of the blood-brain barrier, a fundamental filter mechanism to protect the brain. The spike protein has also been found to cross the BBB and create inflammation in the brain.
  6. High adverse events: Even though most likely under-reported, the overall number of serious adverse events versus other traditional vaccines remains very high. The 6,000+ deaths seen [in the US] in six months exceed all vaccine-related deaths in 30 years. This is quite disquieting, and tends to confirm the aforementioned red flags.
  7. Children more at risk: The Covid-19 vaccines seem to be more harmful to children and teens, notably with a growing number of myocarditis events. The fact that vaccine doses are not adjusted for body weight is a cause for concern given the discovery of circulating nanoparticles and spike toxicity.

These are essentially just the short-term effects of these novel vaccines. There is no long-term clinical data regarding the implications of these vaccines, notably regarding auto-reactive antibodies (antibodies that target one’s own body creating autoimmune diseases).

To conclude, we question why anyone healthy and recovered from COVID-19 would want or be advised to take any risk – even the most remote – in getting vaccinated given that:

  • those who have recovered from COVID-19 enjoy robust immunity;
  • natural immunity duration is decades-long, probably lifelong;
  • natural immunity effectiveness is better than vaccine-induced;
  • variants are not an immunological concern, presenting no risk of immune escape;
  • vaccines are medical interventions which should never be taken lightly, especially when still experimental;
  • there is no benefit for COVID-19 recovered; and
  • COVID-19 vaccines are obviously not as safe as stated initially by the manufacturers.


By Anonymous Patriots,


Difficult-to-find 1836 UK Parliamentary slave compensation ledger tells it all (available here). Proves that British offshore banking was founded on immoral-inhuman capitalization, human trafficking, theft, imprisonment, sodomy, rape and the whip. Payments were still being made in 2015—183 years later.

Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Aug. 03, 1835). Compensation-Abolition of Slavery, Rothschild loan, HC Deb 03 August 1835 vol. 30, cc13-24. Hansard, UK Parliament.

G. Grey. (Mar. 16, 1838). Slave Compensation Claims. Accounts, House of Commons Parliamentary Papers 1837-8 (215) vol. 48, 369 PDF pgs. British Parliament. Reproduced for educational purposes only. Fair Use relied upon. Source:  (48.6 MB)

Archives. (Jul. 07, 2021). British Empire Slave Compensation Claims compared to British Offshore tax havens today. Anonymous Patriots.



Remember where you first read about Hamilton Brown? Here are some links to refresh your memory:









Benjamin Fulford 9/13/21 Report: Fake Biden Regime Begs China for Money as 9/30 Payments Deadline Looms

The fake U.S. regime of the rubber-masked impostor “President” Joe Biden is in serious trouble.  They face a September 30th payments deadline they cannot meet.  Since there is a two-week grace period after the U.S. Corporation defaults, this means a repeat of the February 16th, 2020 market implosion is due on or around October 14th.  That is why U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is publicly warning the U.S. will default on its national debt in October, MI6 sources say.

This is also why “Biden,” called Chinese President Xi Jinping last week.  When he failed to get promises for new funding, his boss, Angela Hitler called and was also told the money would only come if she vowed total obedience to China, Asian Secret Society sources say.  Here is how China’s official Global Times mouthpiece bragged about the conversation:

“The first phone conversation between the two leaders in seven months amid escalating tensions…which took place at the U.S.’ request, highlighted Washington’s growing anxiety and need for China’s cooperation on key global issues.”

China told “Biden,” the “U.S. should take actions to respect China’s basic interests, discard illusions of suppressing China,” and Xi Jinping “called on Washington to shoulder responsibilities to direct the ties back on the right track,” plus “the U.S. should take more action in correcting previous wrong deeds and respecting China’s basic interests, and not expecting China to cooperate while keeping it as an adversary.”  It also noted “the Biden administration is facing huge pressure domestically” so it must not “challenge, slander or even attempt to subvert the path and system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

The Global Times further noted that “Hours after the Xi-Biden call, Xi also spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel” and ordered her “to urge the EU to adhere to the right policies on China.”

The “White House” responded by issuing the following veiled threat:

“The two leaders discussed the responsibility of both nations to ensure competition does not veer into conflict.”

China later responded by suggesting recognizing terrorism as a transnational threat and “a common enemy of mankind.”

The White Dragon Society, for its part, is negotiating an alternative to the “Biden” regime with the Asian Dragon family that uses the Xi Jinping avatar. The proposal being discussed calls for…


ending “terrorism” by pulling the plug and letting the entire fake U.S. regime implode. The talks will continue this week after Dragon family negotiators consult with their elders over the next move, dragon family and WDS sources say.

In any case, patriots in the West need to realize it is vital to overthrow the Khazarian Mafia before they sell the Western people into Chinese slavery.

As U.S. General Michael Flynn said last week, “We are in the fight of our lives.”  He notes “there is nobody in the White House,” and talk of things like “Donald Trump in 2024” is nonsense since “there will not be another fair election until we get the 2020 one resolved.”  Flynn also noted there is an ongoing psy-ops against the American people. He urged patriots to come forth while noting that during the revolutionary wars only 3% of the U.S. population of 4 million fought.

We have a critical mass in the U.S. military, the intelligence agencies, the militias, etc. to fight a new revolutionary war.  To win means identifying the real enemy.  First of all, let’s look at the actions of President Donald Trump and consider if the cavalry is still coming. Die-hard Trumpers need to ask why he turned down the U.S. military when they offered him a chance to overturn the 2020 election theft.  Second of all, they need to explain why he is calling for everybody to be vaccinated even though, as Flynn notes, with a “99.5% recovery rate why are we going through this madness.”  Remember vaccine pusher Trump also failed to reveal the truth about 9.11.  In other words, U.S. patriots need to rally behind Flynn and not Trump.

So, who is the enemy we need to target?  The forensic trail, as usual, points to Switzerland and the Octagon group.  These people, through about 700 high-level operatives, control 90% of transnational corporations.  We know that Klaus Schwab (whose mother was a Rothschild) of the “Great Reset” World Economic Forum reports to Carl von Habsburg.

We also know the Agnelli brothers, who own the Economist together with the Rothschilds, report to Vittorio Emanuele.  These are the people who control the rubber masked replacement of Pope Francis who now wants all humans to be vaccinated with DNA altering concoctions.,_Prince_of_Naples

We also know that Biden’s boss Angela Hitler of Germany is another member of the Octagon group (the real-life Spectre of James Bond fame) politburo.

These people are pulling out all the stops now to stay in power.  That’s why their servant, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (remember nobody elected him), last week issued a dire warning that the world faces “a pivotal moment.”  Guterres warns “conspiracy theories and lies [Orwellian speak for truth] fuel deep divisions within societies.”  He calls for an immediate global vaccination plan implemented by an emergency task force to invest “$50 billion in vaccinations now” and “to strengthen global governance of digital technology [i.e. censorshop].”  Guterres also reveals his masters control the G20, the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council and the heads of international financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

In a sign of just what bold-faced hypocrites these people are he also proposed “global action to“tackle disinformation and conspiracy theories and to promote facts, science, and integrity in public discourse.”  OK Gutterface, why not start by providing scientific evidence SARS-Cov-2 and Covid-19 really exist, something nobody has done yet: as proven by multiple court rulings.

Anyway, if you are a patriot and want to protect people, shoot on sight anybody pushing DNA altering vaccines for this fake pandemic.

We note that a mass revolt against the pandemic and vaccine-pushing criminals is underway in all Western countries.  Take a look at the huge audiences of football games chanting “fuck Joe Biden,” in unison.

Other fake leaders like Justin Castro of Canada and Emanuelle Macron of France cannot appear in public for fear of being ridiculed or even hung on the spot.  There are also trucker strikes in the UK, Australia, the U.S., and elsewhere aimed at forcing regime change.

In the UK, Health Secretary Sajid Javid says Covid jab passports won’t be introduced and that he did not expect the country to see any more lockdowns.

Also, multiple court cases against the fake pandemic and vaccine pushers are starting to have an impact.  For example, a Berlin court ruled in favor of a discothèque that sued over the city’s ban on indoor dancing, forcing the Berlin Senate to allow clubs to reopen.  The New York Times tried to spin this as only applying to the “vaccinated” but that was a bald-faced lie.

Even more dramatically, German prosecutors raided both the Justice and Finance ministries over “money laundering.”  This is a sign the post-war occupation of Germany is about to end, German patriots promise.

In Japan, bars and restaurants are openly defying government orders to not serve liquor and shut by 8 PM.  Japanese gangsters have been given detailed information about how their fake government tried to kill their own people using contaminated Moderna vaccines and have promised to take action.  It won’t be long before Khazarian Mafia proxies like David Atkinson, Michael Greenberg, Kurt Campbell, and their ilk will be forced to flee the country, Japanese right-wingers promise.

There are also signs of Khazarian rats trying to abandon ship.  This was seen when the long-dead “George Soros” (a Rothschild proxy) denounced the BlackRock fund’s move to China as a “tragic mistake” that would “damage the national security interests of the U.S. and other democracies.”

A BlackRock spokesperson responded to Soros’ comments by telling CNBC  “the United States and China have a large and complex economic relationship,” adding that “total trade in goods and services between the two countries exceeded $600 billion in 2020.

The Chinese government outlet Global Times responded by calling Soros a “global economic terrorist” Since the Chinese are calling “terrorism” the enemy of all humans, you can guess what will happen next.

MI6 says “They have all been found out and are fighting it out amongst themselves,” and adds “the Rothschilds are common filth and this is known around the world.”

Of course, these criminals do not plan to go quietly into the night.  They are trying to engineer food shortages, start a war with Iran, and do god knows what else to try and stay in power.

In order to stop attempts to start WWIII we find ourselves repeatedly warning the Asian elders the Iranian leadership works for the same people as the Israeli leadership does:

“President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif are rats, doing the bidding of the Rothschild Chatham House boys and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Rouhani spent 6 years in Scotland getting his Ph.D. in Sharia Law (of all things), hanging with Jack Straw and Lord Levy, one rung down from Rothschild.

Zarif was 20 years in America and very close to Globalist John Kerry. They say half of the Iranian parliament (the pyramid with 33 windows) has a U.S. Green Card.”

It is also looking increasingly likely the KM is going to shut down the internet in a vain attempt to stop the ongoing global awakening. That’s why they are talking about a “once in a century superstorm that could knock out the internet.”

On a final note this week, we would like to share the following exchange we had with Sean Stone, the self-described son of movie director Oliver Stone, about the death of Robert David Steele:

“The investigation into the death of RDS has revealed that he was murdered by injection because he was investigating the embezzlement of $300,000 of his funds.  You have emerged as a person of interest.  What do you know about all this?”

This was his non-answer:

“Are you working with Gordon Duff? If so, please ask him to have Jack Heart contact me as I want to talk with him about his work…”

If somebody implicated me in a murder, you can be sure I would respond.  Remember Oliver Stone proved himself to be a controlled opposition when he made a movie saying almost everybody was involved in the assassination of President John F, Kenney and yet failed to say anything when released documents show Israeli President David Ben Gurion ordered the assassination.

To conclude, enough is enough folks, time for talk is long past, this is war. That means to kill or be killed.



Dr. David Martin drops bombshell: The FDA has only approved a COVID-19 vaccine that does NOT exist in the U.S. marketplace


Dr. David Martin warned the public that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine that does not exist.

“When members of the mainstream suggest that this approval has suddenly put what is sitting in freezers around the world into an approved status, that’s actually not true,” Martin said during his appearance on “Brighteon Conversations.”

“There are still manufacturing guidelines that were not required for the EUA that would be required for a full-approved product.”

He told Health Ranger Mike Adams that the FDA has approved a “unicorn.”

“Comirnaty does not exist,” Martin said, referring to the brand name of the Pfizer vaccine granted full approval by the federal agency. “The approval is for future production of COVID vaccine.” (Related: FDA fraudulently grants full approval to Comirnaty covid vaccine, skipping stage 3 trials and ignoring data on injuries and deaths.)

Martin related that some vital information had been redacted in the approval letter that Pfizer had, as well as in its official publication from the FDA.

“The section of where it can be manufactured and when it can be manufactured is redacted, which is unusual given the fact that an approval letter is supposed to be a public announcement that makes these things visible,” Martin said.

COVID-19 vaccines should lose EUA protections

Both Adams and Martin agreed that the confusion brought by the approval was compounded by the extension of the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine used for children between the ages 12 and 15, as well as for the Moderna and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines.

“The mandate for EUA has to live inside of no clinical alternative,” said Martin. “The moment there is an approval, then the EUA protections for Moderna and Johnson & Johnson would cease to exist instantaneously.”

In its approval letter, the FDA acknowledged that there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine produced under EUA still available for use. The FDA ruled that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” with Comirnaty.

Under the circumstances, it was clear that the granting of full approval was a calculated move by the government to encourage businesses and schools to impose vaccine mandates and enable Pfizer to unload inventories of its COVID-19 vaccine under EUA. Martin said the Biden administration is pushing to get students vaccinated in time for the start of the coming school year.

Difference between fully approved and under EUA products

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those fully approved by the FDA.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. laws. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations state that no one can force a human being to participate in the experiment. Under U.S. laws, it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse experimental vaccines.

On the other hand, U.S. laws permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-approved vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability.

The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The Comirnaty vaccine is subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products. Licensed adult vaccines, including Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. People injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages. Jury awards could be astronomical, so Pfizer is unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for the product.

Public misled by mainstream media

Members of the mainstream media were quick to report that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries following the full approval given by the FDA to Comirnaty on Aug. 23.

The Pentagon promptly announced it will go ahead with its plan to force members of the military to get vaccinated against the virus, while New York City announced on the same day that all public school teachers and other staffers will have to get vaccinated. (Related: Pentagon orders ALL members of the armed forces to be vaccinated, essentially ordering thousands to die from blood clots and vascular damage.)

One of the first to implement the requirement was the State University of New York (SUNY) system, which has nearly 400,000 students and more than 85,000 faculty members spread across its 64 campuses. Several other prominent institutions are expected to impose vaccine mandates after consultation with their Boards of Trustees and state officials.

Fauci started all the madness decades ago

According to Martin, this madness all started in 1999. It was when National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci came up with the idea of creating an infectious replication-defective form of coronavirus. Fauci paid researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to invent a pathogen that did not exist, Martin said.

Fauci essentially asked the researchers to create a bioweapon. “You cannot manufacture a bioweapon and not say that you’re trying to kill people. That’s what a bioweapon is for,” Martin said.

Kizzy Corbett, the person behind the development of COVID-19 vaccines using mRNA technology, once said: “It’s really cool because you don’t even need much of lab. You can build one of these on your computer at home.”

That, Martin said, is an admission of biological warfare.

“We are not talking about a virus. We are talking about an engineered pathogen,” Martin said. “We are not talking about a vaccine. We are talking about the introduction of a computer-simulated code in the form of mRNA – not to stimulate your immune system, but to turn your body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in coronavirus.”

Watch the full episode of “Brighteon Conversations” with Mike Adams and Dr. David Martin here

ACLU abandons its own founding principles, claims FORCING experimental medical injections into people somehow supports “civil liberties”


American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staffers David Cole and Daniel Mach have penned an opinion piece for The New York Times that claims Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” mandates are a major victory for “civil liberties.”

The guest column suggests that forcing people to take experimental Big Pharma drugs under duress is the embodiment of what it means to be free because “there is no equally effective alternative available to protect public health.”

“In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” the duo contends.

“They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.”

Forcing people to roll up their sleeves and modify their DNA because Tony Fauci says so also helps to safeguard workers, Cole and Mach allege, because by doing so, all of our “most basic liberties” – which are right now being deprived from us, by the way – will be fully restored once everyone complies.

“Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity,” the piece reads unironically.

“That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.”

Oh, but pregnant women have the right to murder their unborn children

This ethos of not having the right to inflict harm on others stops at the unborn, though. Children still living inside their mothers’ wombs are not to be protected, as their mothers do, according to the left, have the right to harm them through murder.

As for people outside of the womb, the government should be free to medically rape all of them with mystery needles, Cole and Mach believe. School children should also be forced to take experimental “vaccines” if Fauci decides that this is the best way to “flatten the curve.”

“Schools, health care facilities, the U.S. military and many other institutions have long required vaccination for contagious diseases like mumps and measles that pose far less risk than the coronavirus does today,” the Times article further reads.

It goes on to present false data claiming that “600,000 people have died” from the Chinese Virus in the U.S. as justification for forced medical rape. There are almost no circumstances in which a person should not be forced to take a drug needle against their will, the ACLU insists.

As for religious exemptions from forced vaccination, the ACLU opposes these as well because its executive staff believes that Donald “father of the vaccine” Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” injections are absolutely essential in order to stop the plandemic.

“The real threat to civil liberties comes from states banning vaccine and mask mandates,” the ACLU further alleges, adding that “these bans directly endanger the public health and make more deaths from the disease inevitable.”

In other words, tyranny is freedom. War is peace. Men are women. Life is death. You are me. Lies are truth. These are among the dystopian opinions of the ACLU, which claims to defend your right to make your own choices for your own body.

“The ACLU: Now there’s an outfit whose demise is long overdue,” wrote one commenter at

“It is my civil liberty not to be worried about others,” wrote another. “That is not my job. That is not my responsibility. I am an individual and refuse to be bullied into taking responsibility for the collective. I leave that to the communists.”

The latest news about Chinese Virus injection tyranny can be found at


PART 1: Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on Latest COVID-19 Data

From TheEpochTimes:

PART 1: Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on Latest COVID-19 Data, Booster Shots, and the Shattered Scientific ‘Consensus’

“We need to confront the data [and] not try to cover stuff up or hide risks,” says mRNA vaccine pioneer Dr. Robert Malone.

What does the most recent research say about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines? In this two-part episode, we sit down again with Dr. Malone for a comprehensive look at the vaccines, booster shots, repurposed drugs like ivermectin, and the ethics of vaccine mandates.

Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Malone, it’s such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Robert Malone: Always my pleasure, Jan, and thank you for the chance to come back and visit.

Mr. Jekielek: I want to read you a few headlines that I’ve come across in the last few weeks since we did our recent interview, and give you a chance to speak to them. This is a drophead: “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?” How do you react to this?

Dr. Malone: That’s the Atlantic hit piece. It was a very interesting article because it has a number of logic jumps and irregularities. Then it ends up contradicting itself in the last paragraph, and basically confirming that my assertions about having being the originator of the core technology are valid. I’m subjected to this meme that you didn’t really do the things that you did in the late 1980s almost continuously, usually from internet trolls.

So really what the young author was picking up on was some internet memes that have been wrapped around the prior press push that Katie Kariko and Drew Weissman were the ones that had originated the technology. Now that was clearly false, but it was very actively promoted by their university, which holds a key patent, and then advanced through Stat News, Boston Globe, CNN, and then finally the New York Times.

We challenged that, and in the case of the New York Times, they actually recut their interview and podcast with Katie Kariko to cut out the parts where she had claimed that she was the original inventor.

But how do I react to it, this kind of pejorative use of language to cast shade? It doesn’t really bother me. I know what the facts are, and I have this massive amount of documentation. When people come at me with those things, I just say, “Hey, look, here it’s on the website. Here are the documents, you can make your own assessment.”

The thing that bothers me about all of this, when they’re personalizing character assassination on me and character attacks, is that it distracts from the issues. And it’s not about me, this kind of chronic questioning of why would I be saying things about the ethics of what’s going on? Why would I be raising concerns about the safety signals? I must have some ulterior motive.

There’s an underlying theme to all this, that I must have some ulterior motive. This particular journalist asked me again, and again, and again, trying to get at, “What was my ulterior motive for trying to undermine these vaccines based on my technology?” It was so paradoxical, the push of a whole series of questions that he raised with me.

I don’t know what it says about journalism or what it says about our culture, that we always assume that someone must have an ulterior motive. It’s not sufficient to just be addressing an issue because it matters, because it is the ethically correct thing to do. There seems to be this assumption that everybody’s got an angle. It says more about the author than it says about me.

This kind of casting shade and aspersions on me personally as a way to avoid addressing the underlying issues, I just see it as a kind of noise and also a little bit sad. It’s almost an affirmation. If the strongest thing they can come up with is to try to attack and cast shade on whether or not I made a significant contribution that led to over nine patents during the late 1980s—if that’s the worst they can throw at me, I’m doing pretty good. So that’s how I see it.

Mr. Jekielek: So you’re not trying, “So hard to undermine the use of this vaccine technology.”

Dr. Malone: No. My concern here, as I said in our prior interview, is that there’s been a series of actions taken, policies taken, regulatory actions taken, that are at odds with how I’ve been trained with the norms as I’ve always understood them. The regulatory norms, the scientific norms—these things have been waived. For a lot of people, it doesn’t make sense.

And recall, reeling back, what triggered this was this amazing podcast with Bret Weinstein and Steve Kirsch, where I don’t think at that point in time the world had really heard anyone questioning the underlying safety data assumptions and ethics of what was being done. There was a widespread sense of unease about these mandates and efforts to force vaccinations, and expedite the licensure of this and deploy it globally on the basis of very abbreviated clinical trials. There was a widespread sense of uneasiness.

But people didn’t really have language to express it. When that podcast happened, for some reason, it catalyzed global interest in a way that I didn’t expect. I still have people writing me, “I just saw the Bret Weinstein DarkHorse Podcast.” Something happened there, where events came together. I expressed some things that I had just been observing that I felt were anomalous in how the government was managing the situation, in the nature of the vaccines, in the testing of the vaccines, and in the ethics of how they were being deployed and forced on children, plus other things in various countries, including the United States.

That triggered a whole cascade, but it wasn’t because I had concerns about the technology or was casting shade on the technology, I’ve repeatedly made it clear that, in my opinion, these vaccines have saved lives. I get challenged on that all the time, by the way. There’s a whole cohort that says, “Oh no, these aren’t worth anything. They shouldn’t be used at all. They’re not effective.”

In my opinion, they’ve saved a lot of lives and they’re very appropriate at this point in time. The risk benefit favors administration of these vaccines, even with all we’ve learned since in these last few months, it favors their administration to the elderly and the high-risk populations. So contrary to this thread of I’m trying to denigrate these and tear them down—no, I’m trying to say I’m all in favor, strongly in favor of ethical development and deployment of vaccines that are safe, pure, effective, and non-adulterated.

I’m really strongly dug in that we need to confront the data as it is, and not try to cover stuff up or hide risks or avoid confronting risks. In my opinion, the way that we get to good public policy  in public health is we not only recognize those risks, but we also constantly take the position of looking forward, looking for leading indicators of risk, performing risk mitigation, and monitoring for black swans and unexpected events surrounding that.

That’s where I come from, strongly believing that the norms that have been developed over the last 30 to 40 years in vaccinology should be maintained. We shouldn’t jettison them just because we’re having a crisis.

Mr. Jekielek: Why don’t we do a review? There’s been a number of very significant papers in the last week or two that have come out with very robust data sets telling us, to my less educated eye, some very valuable information. If you agree, maybe you can review some of these for us. I know you’ve been studying every one of these in some detail.

Dr. Malone: The emergence of the Delta variant, whether originally in India and then subsequently in the UK and then in Israel, has really thrown back the public health enterprise globally and in these countries, because there were assumptions made about the effectiveness of the current vaccines and their ability to contain the outbreak. There was almost a social contract set up between the vaccine recipients and the governments and public health authorities.

That social contract was, “Despite what you may have heard about the risks of some of these products and the fact that we admittedly did rush them, we’re protecting your health. If you take these products, you will be safe.” That’s the social contract. “Despite all these other concerns, you will be safe, and you won’t have to retake them. You’ll be protected.” People believed they had a shield if they bought in and did this.

And then the Delta variant came along, and suddenly that was no longer valid. The assumption that had been made, the social contract, was somehow broken. First we found out, if you’ll recall this cascade of events—we had Pfizer disclose that the durability, the length of time that the vaccine would provide protection was not as expected. It was something like six months. This came out of the Israeli data.

Mr. Jekielek: Just to be clear, are we talking about protection from infection or protection from disease?

Dr. Malone: That’s a whole other rabbit hole. It really was protection from infection and spread that was the main parameter of concern with the six month data. You may recall that announcement was made unilaterally by Pfizer based on the Israeli data, and then immediately contradicted by Dr. Fauci saying that this wasn’t true and Pfizer had no right to make these statements, and they hadn’t discussed it with him. Pfizer then apologized and backed down.

And a week later, the U.S. government announced, that in fact, we were going to need to have boosters. Then there was the announcement that the government had contracted to buy the boosters that were going to be deployed at eight months. Then more data came out. Now most recently the government is saying, “We may have to have boosters at five months.” There was emergency use authorization that this third dose would be deployed to elderly and immunocompromised. And now we’re talking about everybody needing it.

So this was the logic, “Take the dose, take the two shots or the one-shot for J&J and you’ll be protected. We’ll get out of this because we’ll reach herd immunity. The whole problem is that we just don’t have enough people that are being compliant with this.” Remember, this goes back to July 4th.

July 4th was the goal when we were going to have 70 per cent vaccine uptake. We didn’t meet that. And there was a lot of discomfort with the Israeli data. Then all of this new information is rolled out, the Israeli data in particular, having to do with the increasing number of infections and hospitalizations.

At first the position was that this was only occurring in the unvaccinated cohort. Then that became increasingly untenable and it became clear that it was occurring in the vaccinated cohort. The same became true with the UK data set, which is stronger than the American monitoring system. They do a lot more sequence analysis.

So now we had this paradox that those that had been vaccinated, while the data still suggested that they’re largely protected from disease and death and more protected than the unvaccinated from disease and death, they’re no longer protected from infection. It became clear within the data, and through multiple sources, that the levels of virus replication in the individuals, even who had been vaccinated previously, was the same or higher as the levels of virus replication in those that had been un-vaccinated. And also that those that had been vaccinated and had breakthrough infections, which is what we’re talking about, were also shedding virus and able to spread virus.

So that raised the prospect that they were kind of the new super spreaders, because they would have less apparent disease and yet still be shedding high levels of virus. Then we started to see some signs suggesting that there may be some differences in the nature or onset or titers of disease in those that had been infected beyond six months after their vaccination point. This is the waning phase.

That set up a situation where a lot of folks were on edge. There were still a lot of media pushing that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but that became increasingly untenable as the data rolled in.

You’ve referred to this paper that came out. There were actually three in a row that came out almost immediately after the license was issued for the BioNTech product.

There was a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine that had an odd structure in which they related adverse events associated with the virus infection and a much more comprehensive assessment of adverse events associated with the vaccines. By juxtaposing these two data sets in the same manuscript, the case was made that, “Yes, we have this significantly enhanced spectrum of adverse events associated with the vaccine beyond what had been previously disclosed. We were all focused on the cardio-toxicity.”

But now, additional adverse events, and things that we discussed when we had our last chat as parent adverse events, these are now fairly well-documented in this New England Journal article, things like viral reactivation. So this is the shingles, for instance.

The paper attempts to make the case that, “The vaccines have a lot of adverse events, but the disease has a lot of adverse events also, and the disease is worse. Also there’s a lot of overlap between these adverse events associated with the disease and the vaccine.” But the messaging was focused in that manuscript that it was far worse to get the disease than to have the adverse events associated with the vaccine.

That’s a little bit of a false analogy, because the vaccine ostensibly would be deployed to 80 or 90 per cent of the population. And in terms of this wave of Delta, we might see something like 20 or 30 per cent of the population infected if we’re lucky. Then there’s an imbalance of who’s at risk with the vaccine versus who’s at risk for the infection, but that was the construct.

Mr. Jekielek: And just to be clear, what do you mean by 20 to 30 per cent, if we’re lucky? Where do those numbers come from?

Dr. Malone: I’ve seen data suggesting that the total population right now that’s been infected in the United States is something like about 20 per cent of the total population. We don’t have that widespread of an uptake of infection in the U.S. or in the UK. UK data also shows those kinds of numbers. They’re reflected in a cohort that have had a natural infection and recovered from that, and then acquired the immune response associated with that.

It’s seen in the numbers, for instance, in those cases where there is an accounting, such as in the Great Britain database, the British database, where they say the fraction of the population that’s been vaccinated, and then the fraction of the population that’s acquired natural immunity. It’s also covered in the CDC slide deck that was leaked. I don’t think that was available when we had our last conversation.

At the early outset, at the front edge of the Delta outbreak here in the United States, there was a key slide deck that was disclosed to the Washington Post without approval by a CDC employee. Within that slide deck, it showed a number of confidential internal assessments that weren’t intended to be shared with the public. Those assessments also included an estimate that we had something like 50 per cent of the population that had accepted vaccine at that point in time. In addition, there was something like 20 per cent of the population that had been infected.

So if you add those two, if you were to consider natural infection as providing some degree of protection against the virus, then we would move from something like 50 per cent vaccine uptake to something like 70 per cent of the population at that point in time that had actually acquired some form of immunity either through vaccination or infection. So that’s the basis of my seat-of-the-pants estimate.

In addition, in the CDC slide deck, the government revealed in two key slides that were at the center of that deck, that their epidemiologic calculations and projections were such that the reproductive coefficient of Delta was something in the range of eight. There’s other papers that suggest it’s more like a little over five, that it was as infectious as chickenpox approximately, which is highly infectious, about two to three times more infectious than the Alpha strain was.

Based on those projections and some assumptions about the percent of the population that had been naturally infected, and the percent of the population that had taken up vaccine, and some assumptions about the effectiveness of mask use in protecting either an individual from being infected by a third party that wasn’t using masks or protecting a third party from infection from somebody that was using a mask and was infected—there were a series of projection curves about how that could impact on the spread of the virus.

Basically when you work through those curves, what they demonstrated was that even if we had 100 per cent vaccine uptake with these vaccines, where the technical term is leaky, that do not provide perfect protection against infection, that we would not be able to stop the spread of the virus through the U.S. population. We would slow it. So that’s where those estimates come from.

That’s where that assessment that is being used as the basis for advocating widespread mask deployment throughout the United States, that’s where that policy comes from. It’s a CDC analysis that if we don’t use masks, then the virus will spread quite rapidly. If we do have full compliance with mask use, we can slow it down a bit. And so that’s why we have these various mask mandates throughout the United States now.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. You started talking about natural immunity here. I thought it was some of the most interesting, robust data, at least to my eye. Again, you’re the one who’s going to be speaking on this.

Dr. Malone: I agree, and a lot of people agree. It was covered in Science magazine. It’s still a pre-print, but it was robust enough, and well enough constructed that even on the basis of the pre-print, Science magazine went ahead and made the clear point. Really, throughout the world, there was recognition that this new data coming out of Israel, as I recall, demonstrated that the term that’s often used is natural immunity. It’s an odd term, but it’s now in common language.

What that means is protection afforded by having been infected and recovered from infection, which will generate a broad immune response. And it’s now been shown in that paper and others that the breadth of that immune response in terms of memory T and B cell populations is more diverse and more long lasting than the breadth of immune response elicited by the spike based vaccines alone.

That data that you’re alluding to showed that this natural immunity is broader and more durable, which contradicted some studies that the CDC had developed. So we were in a kind of tension. Which is the real data, the CDC data, or these other papers that are evaluated memory T and B cell populations? Which is true? We have multiple truths or multiple pieces of data, plus different groups claiming it’s one way or the other.

Then this data was dropped about the evidence of protection. It seems to indicate and be consistent with the claims that the breadth and durability of the immune response was superior with the natural infection in recovery. There’s also evidence that there’s a significant, depending on the timeframe, six to twenty-fold improvement in protection from infection and disease associated with the natural immunity acquired from prior infection, compared to that conferred by the vaccine.

So now the public, in their social contract with the public health agencies, is faced with the situation where they had been told that natural immunity was not as protective, and that they can’t rely on that. If you’ve been previously infected, you should still get both doses of vaccine, and this vaccination would provide broad, durable protection. It would protect you, and it would protect your elders from you potentially spreading disease to them.

Now, those things have all come into question. The population is still reeling from that. We have kind of dug into these camps. My sense is that people haven’t really fully processed what this means. It is profound.

We were discussing before we started shooting, that I had a long podcast interview today and a kind of advisory session with a group of Latin American physicians and scientists that were evaluating public policy for vaccine rollout versus early treatment options for the different cohorts that they have to protect. They were seeing this data from the eyes of folks that really haven’t had good access to vaccines, but are facing the prospects that their countries could execute vaccine contracts and bring in these vaccines. They are asking the question, “Does this make sense for us? Is this good policy? Should our country invest in these mRNA vaccines?”

That is why they were talking to me. “What are we going to get for it if we do this? What’s going to be the benefit to our population?” It was a very level-headed discussion. But they were pushing me in this, getting back to this theme of me being the vaccine skeptic. They were the ones pushing me saying, “We just don’t see the value here for our populations. We don’t see a compelling case when these products aren’t stopping the spread. They are going to have to be re-administered fairly frequently if they’re to be effective?”

Now, the other thing that comes out of this, a concern that the World Health Organization hasn’t really come to terms with—I’m speaking of the CDC and the WHO and the whole global infrastructure, including the Israeli government—is one of now mandating a third jab. So in Israel, if you haven’t received all three, you’re not considered fully vaccinated.

Mr. Jekielek: You have a six month window, if I’m not mistaken.

Dr. Malone: Precisely. But one of the things about the Israeli data is that they vaccinated in such a bolus, in such a short push, because they have such a compliant population, that essentially, they have a spike in vaccinated persons. So they’re all moving concurrently through that six month window now.

There was a pivotal interview with the director of the CDC and she was asked, “Do we have any data? Do we have data, or do we just have hope about the benefits of the third dose?” And she, to her credit, acknowledged that we don’t have data. All we have is hope.

Here’s the problem with that. Vaccine responses are not linear. More is not better. There are many cases where if you dose more or dose more frequently or move beyond a prime and a boost, you can actually quench the immune response. You can move into “high zone tolerance.” You can move into a situation where your immune responses drop.

Now there’s a little bit of foreshadowing on this in another paper that’s out where they looked at the effects of vaccination post-infection. Remember this was the policy, that those like me that have been infected should go ahead and take two jabs, take two doses of vaccine.

Mr. Jekielek: Which you did.

Dr. Malone: Which I did, hoping that it would be helpful for a long COVID period. That data hasn’t really played out that way. And there’s a paper showing that you can actually quench T-cell responses. You get an improved kind of a super immune response, they assert in that manuscript, after a single dose when you’ve been previously infected. But with the second dose, your T-cell population actually gets quenched, which is consistent with high zone tolerance.

So if that paper was to be expanded and verified with more robust numbers, it would suggest that one dose after natural infection would be a good thing. Two doses would be a bad thing. Now that’s the equivalent of three doses if you think about it, natural infection being dose one.

So to say that we don’t have any data is a little misleading. We have some leading indicators that suggest that it might not be such a good idea. And now, that data will come out from Israel. The conservative position to take is time will tell, and then we will know.

The Israelis continue to be in the throes of a very active Delta virus infection surge right now. There’s some other very intriguing tidbits going on here in this whole public policy of vaccines versus no vaccines, versus universal vaccines, versus the Barrington position that we should selectively vaccinate those that are at high risk.

Mr. Jekielek: The Great Barrington Declaration?

Dr. Malone: Yes, the Great Barrington Declaration. After that whole matrix of decisions, in comes Sweden. You may recall that Sweden was roundly criticized for this naive notion that they weren’t going to vaccinate. They were going to allow the virus to have its will with the population. They have backtracked from that now, to be technically accurate. They have about 40 per cent vaccine uptake and they’ve acknowledged that position was naive and counterproductive. They had excess deaths initially in the high-risk cohorts.

But what they did do was have a lot more natural infection with alpha and beta strains. And now that Delta is moving through the region, they have an extremely low mortality rate, often hitting zero on any one day—in comparison to some of their neighbors that didn’t take that policy, and didn’t have such widespread natural infection. Like Finland, for example, where they deployed vaccine very avidly and had good uptake, they’re having the exponential growth rate curve that’s happening in many other Northern European countries right now.

Mr. Jekielek: I’m going to comment here. This is very interesting because you’re interpreting this data a bit differently than Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who is from Sweden.  His commentary in a recent interview we did was simply that there were no mandates of any sort ever in Sweden, yet their vaccine use is actually quite high. He said it’s one of the higher rates that exist. But he didn’t factor in this time period that you said at the beginning, where there was this idea of letting the natural infections happen. And you’re saying the reason their rates are zero mortality is because of that.

Dr. Malone: Yes. It is a very reasonable explanation for what’s happened there. It’s a differentiator between them and some of their neighboring countries. They did have that early policy and they did have fairly widespread infection. So that would be consistent with the data suggesting that natural infection is providing broader and more durable immunity.

This gets to the logic of a selective deployment of vaccines to those that are at highest risk. For that fragment of the population, let’s say below 65, depending on where you want to cut the line, 60, 65, 70, some people go down to 55, not providing vaccine coverage to those individuals unless they’re in a very high risk population, morbidly obese, or with immunologic deficiencies—that may be a more enlightened public policy.

By the way, it is one more consistent with the WHO position that we still have limited vaccine supply, and it would be far more appropriate and equitable to deploy that vaccine supply more broadly globally to protect the elders in particular throughout the world, rather than this focus on universal vaccination.

Now with a booster, a third booster, a third dose, there’s been multiple statements by the WHO that they believe this is not ethical. Now, I had another interview today with a journalist podcaster who is from South Africa but living in France, and very aware of the French resistance that’s developing now to vaccines with all those protests.

Mr. Jekielek: To vaccine mandates, correct?

Dr. Malone: In particular, yes. His point was that if you look at this through the eyes of emerging economies, this Western focus on universal vaccination of their populations and now a third vaccine for their populations and their unwillingness to share the technology is a form of imperialism and hegemony. The Western nations have access to this technology and these doses and they’re not willing to share it with the rest of the world.

So we’ve got a series of things here where this kind of imbalance in distribution of these vaccines as a resource is creating or exacerbating concerns that exist widely in economically disadvantaged countries. There’s just not a level playing field and we’re all in this boat together with this disease. Yet we’re not being equitable in distribution of the countermeasures that are available.

Mr. Jekielek: This is fascinating, even as others that you’re speaking with are asking, “Do we even need these at this point?” That’s fascinating.

Dr. Malone: Yes, I agree. So what does this mean? I don’t know. What I sense is, again, we’re in one of those moments where there is chaos. There’s lack of structure and consensus about how to move forward. And my sense is, getting back to the U.S. government, we’re in a position now where a lot of the core assumptions underlying the vaccine strategy have been called into question. We don’t really know what’s on the other side.

Then on top of that, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that these repurposed drugs and other agents that could provide protection and mitigate death and disease, if they were deployed early in outpatient environments, access to those that are being actively suppressed. That’s another one of those, “This doesn’t make sense,” kind of problems. It is causing a lot of questioning about the motivations of those that are guiding public policy right now.

The second part of this episode will be released on Saturday, Sept. 4, at 7 p.m. ET.

Below is a list of references mentioned or related to the discussion in this episode: 

Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant” (Note: This is a preprint).

Fauci: Amount of virus in breakthrough delta cases ‘almost identical’ to unvaccinated” — The Hill

CDC: “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021

Predominance of antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants in vaccine breakthrough cases from the San Francisco Bay Area, California” (Note: This is a preprint)

New delta variant studies show the pandemic is far from over” — ScienceNews

Read: Internal CDC document on breakthrough infections” — The Washington Post

New UCSF study: Vaccine-resistant viruses are driving ‘breakthrough’ COVID infections” — The Mercury News

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections” (Note: This is a preprint)

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital” — Science

Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals” (Note: This is a preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England” — Public Health England

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting” — The New England Journal of Medicine

Real-World Study Captures Risk of Myocarditis With Pfizer Vax” — MedPage Today

CDC: “Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Frontline Workers Before and During B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant Predominance — Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020—August 2021

CDC: Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Fell From 91% To 66% With Delta Variant“ — Forbes

SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans” — Nature

CDC: “Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May-June 2021

Causes and consequences of purifying selection on SARS-CoV-2” — Genome Biology and Evolution

The reproductive number of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is far higher compared to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus” — Journal of Travel Medicine

Mutation rate of COVID-19 virus is at least 50 percent higher than previously thought” —

Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals” (Note: This is a preprint)

The Science ~ Lee Merritt, MD ~ “What is VAERS and What Does It Show?”

Suggested viewing and intro below by PFC Member Devon:  Thank you!

Here’s Dr Lee Merritt, member of the American Frontline Doctors, presenting her talk, while on fire. But beautifully containing it. Her voice speaks a lot, as much as her words. Here are a few of hers:
“If you think we’re fighting a virus, you’re going to act like a victim. If you think we’re fighting a war, you’re going to act like a warrior.” – Dr Lee Merritt, at America’s Frontline Doctors White Coat Summit Anniversary, July 2021″
Dr Lee Merrit presents the factual data after studying Vaers’ result over the last 35 years. The numbers are stunning, very revealing.
Be comforted, knowing that when you inform yourself, and invest in staying healthy, including being at peace in your heart with how things unfold, as long as no loss of lives is involved, you’ll be in the best possible space you can wish for yourself, and indirectly for others.
We are human, capable of feeling a rainbow of emotions. At the same time, we’re almost forced to observe ourselves in our reactions, while studying what’s going on in our global theatre, on stage. Where we’re as much the actors on stage, as the audience, in all of this pandemonium.
So that, observed from both these points of view and location, we’re understanding the larger picture, giving purpose to all this by means of our own creativity and the will to “BE the CHANGE we wish to see in the world”.
It’s possible that you sigh, annoyed by reading that expression for the umpthh time. When you don’t feel this as a truth, just pretend that it’s true and try out if it works. You’ll probably be surprised in more than one way ?
For dessert, here’s Denis Noble’s book “The Music of Life – Biology beyond Genes”
According to Denis Noble “Nature and nurture are not essentially different. They influence each other.”
This book is available for a price, and for free through other sources online, possibly requiring registration or a small fee. It’s worth a read!